Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 11:24:34 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] x86/mm/tlb: Refactor common code into
 flush_tlb_on_cpus()
Message-ID: <20190527092434.GT2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190525082203.6531-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <20190525082203.6531-5-namit@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190525082203.6531-5-namit@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:22:01AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:

> There is one functional change, which should not affect correctness:
> flush_tlb_mm_range compared loaded_mm and the mm to figure out if local
> flush is needed. Instead, the common code would look at the mm_cpumask()
> which should give the same result.

> @@ -786,18 +804,9 @@ void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
>  	info = get_flush_tlb_info(mm, start, end, stride_shift, freed_tables,
>  				  new_tlb_gen);
>  
> -	if (mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm)) {
> -		lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled();
> -		local_irq_disable();
> -		flush_tlb_func_local(info, TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN);
> -		local_irq_enable();
> -	}
> -
> -	if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), cpu) < nr_cpu_ids)
> -		flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), info);

So if we want to double check that; we'd add:

	WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(mm)) ==
		     (mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm)));

right?

> +	flush_tlb_on_cpus(mm_cpumask(mm), info);
>  
>  	put_flush_tlb_info();
> -	put_cpu();
>  }